W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Summary of (substantive) change requests from post-LC comments

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:56:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4E844EF1.60101@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> == IM-1 ==
> There was a request to modify the protocol so that PUT with multipart
> form is permitted for current "PUT" and "POST" functionality. This
> seems like a reasonable request, (since it is an additive change) I
> don't think it would be a disruptive change, and I can see how this
> is a very likely use case / scenario.


> There was a question about what should be returned in scenarios where
> the Content-Type is not provided and the server has a routine that
> guesses the type by the content of the resource and the routine
> reports that the resource is Turtle and not RDF/XML. My inclination
> is to add language allowing implementations to 'sniff' out the
> content type if they have the means to, but to fall back to RDF/XML
> otherwise.

Fuseki has file upload (currently a separate service endpoint for POST 
as browsers don't PUT).  It uses the filename of the upload to determine 
syntax.  Browsers don't set content type helpfully.

So if there is "sniffing"text, maybe add a sentence on file extension. 
The various MIME types do register a file extension.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:IM-1
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 10:57:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC